Wikipedia:Peer review/Arsène Wenger/archive1

Arsène Wenger
This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to know if this is on the right track to a GA.

Thanks, Lemonade51 (talk) 23:27, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: I thought this was interesting and pretty well done - seems like it is relatively close to ready for GAN. Thanks for your work on it and here are some suggestions for improvement. Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). I do not watch peer reviews, so if you have questions or comments, please contact me on my talk page. Yours, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 05:54, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * A model article is useful for ideas and examples to follow. There are many sport biography FAs at Featured_articles, which should provide some useful models
 * 2 dab links
 * 5 dead external links
 * The lead does not really follow WP:LEAD well. For one thing the lead should be no more than 4 paragraphs long and this is 5 paragraphs.
 * The lead should be an accessible and inviting overview of the whole article. As such, nothing important should be in the lead only - since it is a summary, it should all be repeated in the body of the article itself. However at least Wenger is widely regarded by many as one of the world's best managers.[6][7][8] appears only in the lead that I could see.
 * This also means that refs are not generally needed in the lead (except for direct quotes and extraordinary claims) - the material will appear again in the body of the article and be sourced there.
 * The lead does not read to me like a full summary of the article. My rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way, even if it is just a owrd or phrase. However, I do not see anything on controversies or his personal life in the lead, for example.
 * Avoid choppy prose that breaks the narrative flow of the article - often this comes from short (one or two sentence) paragraphs, or short (one or paragraph) sections.
 * I think the Early life and Playing career sections could be combined as they are only 2 paragraphs now (plus a short quote).
 * SInce this is the English Wikipedia, I would translate all foreign words / phrases whose meaning is not clear (so the name of his parents' bar, for example)(I do think most readers will understand Le Professeur though)
 * Watch for WP:WEIGHT and WP:RECENT issues. He spent 3 years as head of AS Nancy, but this gets one sentence. In contrast his time in Japan was only 18 months (so roughly half the time) but gets two full paragraphs. I know there is more to write about with a successful team, but still...
 * Avoid vague time terms like "currently" as they can quickly necome out of date - it is better to use "As of YEAR" so He is currently the club's longest serving manager and most successful, based on trophies won.[3][4] could be something like As of November 2011, he is the club's longest serving manager ... (the end could be cleaned up too, but I am too tired to think of a way now - sorry)
 * Another place where more specific time could be added is Wenger is married to former basketball player Annie Brosterhous, with whom he has one daughter, Léa[14] (born 1997), and currently lives in Totteridge, London.[10][16] Is there a source saying when they were married? So Wenger married former basketball player Annie Brosterhous in YEAR; they have one daughter, Lea, who was born in 1997. The Wengers have lived in Totteridge, London since YEAR. OR Wenger and former basketball player Annie Brosterhous have been married since YEAR. As of 2011, they live with their daughter Lea, who was born in 1997, in Totteridge, London.
 * WP:MOS says once you introduce someone using their full name, just to use their last name thereafter (unless there are two or more people with the same last name or someone is best known by a name other than their last name). So look at how David Dein is handled, for example
 * WP:HEAD says not to use ampersand & in headers in almost all cases (and this is not one of them)
 * The Controversies section does not seem to me like most of these were very controversial - two of the five subsections do not even use the word controversy / controversial. Not sure what else to call it though....
 * The word also is usually not needed (though there are times when it is)
 * Please make sure that the existing text includes no copyright violations, plagiarism, or close paraphrasing. For more information on this please see Wikipedia_Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches. (This is a general warning given in all peer reviews, in view of previous problems that have risen over copyvios.)
 * Very much grateful for your thorough feedback. Will be working on this in the coming weeks. —Lemonade51 (talk) 13:07, 18 November 2011 (UTC)